God of Contradictions
Birth of the God and its early
childhood:
Learned ones say that in the early years of
his birth, the man needed an answer to all the mystic questions posed by the
nature. Wherever he had no reason he invented a super-reason. He called this
super reason – the God.
Subsequently this concept of God was
coupled with the life, norms of life, moral conduct, social values, rituals and
performances. As the consciousness of man developed and he evolved a systematic
study of surroundings his this super reason and the mysticism around it started
being questioned. The super reason and all related mysticism were then known as
religion and this systematic study of surroundings is known as science. The
friction between the religion and the science has been the essential part of
the human history of civilization.
The God and its theory have always been
under the attack not from the scientists only, which goes a few hundred years
back in time, but also from those members of the society who claimed themselves
to be analytics and are as old as is the society and the concept of the God.
They claim that they are as old as is the God. History calls them as atheists.
A number of arguments were led and
countered for the God. A number of battles were fought either as crusade or
jihad in the name of God. The human history has never let the God, sit calmly and
peacefully.
The fiercest attack by the science:
Prior to the development of the science the
battle between the theistic and atheistic groups were mainly argumentative.
These arguments were led with varying sentence structures, different syntax and
well developed syllogism. Their refutation was a bit easy. When the science
joined the fray it claimed to have changed the scenario in its entirety.
The science started dispelling the
arguments of God on the basis of facts. The sciences broke the myth that the
God is on the seventh sky. Science tracked the interstellar distances and told
with factual correctness that there was a vacuum and other celestial bodies and
not the layers of the skies.
Religious people said that there was heaven
and there were angles, enjoyment and many other things of leisurely life were
there. The science declared that there is not even a possibility of any life in
the universe except on the earth, at least not within a radius of several
million light years around our Milky Way galaxy.
They said every thing is done by the God in
this world. The sciences told that there is a principle of causality. Provide
the causes the effect will take place. It is as certain as that.
Similarly other beliefs of the religion and
the God were dispelled by the science.
The theists took a new stand. The said that
science has itself proposed a limit of knowledge. Beyond which the science
cannot go. They take such instances from the science itself. Heisenberg
proposed the uncertainty principle. He said whatever the techniques and
methodologies are adopted there is a limit of precision with which the position
and velocity of a sub-atomic particle can be calculated. The sciences cannot go
beyond that limit of precision. Similarly Einstein said that there was the
upper limit of speed which can be attained. It was the speed (precisely it is
called the velocity) of light. It shows that the human efforts to explore the
nature are constricted by the tools of the nature itself. No man, if
continuously remains busy in observing the universe can “look” beyond an area
of 70-80 light years of universal existence. This is approximately the life
span of that man. Those who have read about the dimensions of universe as
billions of light years know that any period less than 100 light years is a
very small distance.
Is this nature so evolved (or made, as the
theists argue) that it is not to reveal itself on the human minds? Theists say
yes. They say it is only for God to know every thing and not for the humans who
are just one among all the creations in this universe. They argue something
like “apple argument” at the time of Edam
Scientists find this argument against the
proposition that the God is kind and has mercy and compassion for his creation.
If he is compassionate enough then why he wants to keep the secrets of nature
inaccessible from the human approach?
Whatever be the next argument but mind it
here that the arguments have re-entered the pre-scientific era. They are again
contending their validity based on the logic, syntax and syllogism. So the
sciences are not so designed as to answer all the questions of theists. This is
somewhat similar to the religion which is so formulated that it is unable to
answer all the questions of atheists.
Then would this problem of God’s existence
be solved again using those pre-scientific tools – arguments, logic, reason,
sentences, syntaxes, syllogistic approaches? In the early twentieth century
Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in his “Tractatus” that the language is like a tool
box. The words have nothing inherent in them; their meaning largely depends on
the way and in the manner which they are used in. Later on the philosophers of Vienna
Philosophers of Vienna
What is the real question?
The God, the soul etc. are the state of
existence. People whenever refer to the existence they do it with the help of
languages which they have developed during the course of their history. In the
language of Inuit people the word corresponding to the snow are many more time
than the words in other European languages collectively. The words related to
the God in Indian languages are several times more than the words in any other
language. So when you translate an instance of snow from the Inuit language
into some Sahara region language, having almost no word for snow, then you may
not find a proper word to describe a particular instance related to snow in that
Inuit language. It reflects the limitations of the Sahara
language and not the limitation of the snow or that particular instance of
snow. Similarly whenever any instance of transcendental experience is told in
worldly languages and it does not convey the full meaning to the listener then
it shows the limitations of the worldly languages and not that of the
transcendental experience.
Whenever any description of the God is made
and it creates a contradiction in terms then it may be a contradiction or
limitation of the language and not that of the God. It must be understood that
the languages generally fail to express the existence. These languages are just
ad hoc tools to deal with the factual position at the empirical level. “Dasein”
in Heidegger’s philosophy, “chi” in Chinese tradition, “Braham”
in Indian life are some such concepts which cannot be translated in any other
language of the world. It shows only a limitation of the other languages of the
world and not that of “Dasein” or “chi” or “Braham”. It should be
understood clearly.
There fore when something is told about the
God or the existence or the essence and it gives rise to a contradicting
situation then prior to making a final statements about the God or the existence
or the essence or the absolute, reconsideration must be made to the languages
in which it is told. That would help in reformulating the real questions.
“Reason” is only a small faculty in the
human brain:
Human beings have various faculties in their
brain. These are emotional, aesthetic, logical, practical, verbal, spatial,
temporal, interpersonal, affectional, social, motivational and a hundreds more.
Modern psychologists call them multiple intelligences.
One loves one’s children, one’s country and
one’s values and there is no reason behind it. Some people do not love their
children, their country or values. This is always a matter of choice. No
argument, applicable to all can be given asking every body to choose the same
option. This is one’s choice to comprehend one’s children, country or values.
He has arrived at these conclusions subjectively. No objective intervention is
possible for shaping one’s internal choice. Arguments are advanced objectively
and correspond to only those aspects of life which are equally objective.
But this opens a new window for those who
argue about the God or no-God. Argument is not everything. A lot of existence
lies beyond the domain of this ‘argument’. Argument is only to see the harmony
between two sentences. Arguments do not survive beyond the words and sentences.
Whatever is non verbal is non argumentative. Love, compassion, bliss, blessings
and prayer (in the heart) etc. are all examples of non argumentative existence.
Either you are in love for someone or you are not. No argument can be forwarded
for being or not being in love.
The same is true for God. You may realize
God or you may not. But it is all about you and nothing about the God. Whenever
you realize about the God it is non verbal grasping of things and it cannot be
injected into with the syringe of arguments. Those who lead arguments in favour
of or against the God, infact tell about their arguments, premises of their
arguments. And there is nothing about the God.
If the arguments are accepted for or
against the God then it will be tantamount to show that the human reason goes
beyond and is all-encompassing everything including the existence, validity,
cause, effect and purpose of the God. The God, who by definition is all
inclusive of the human beings, non human beings, animals, non living beings,
celestial bodies, interstellar space, black holes, supernovas and all those
things which are not yet known and would be known in future through the
discoveries of science etc., is subservient to the human reason which has still
to know the whole creation and its amplitude. This then would be an
anti-argument to the aforesaid argument that the God can be known through the
human reason. Again it would go to the domain of verbal communication. Again
Wittgenstein would be referred and again the Vienna
Arguments of reason about the God will do
it again and again. A contradiction is about to be encountered always whenever
you proceed to lead arguments for or against the God. Your reason has a
limitation as Heisenberg and Einstein proposed the limitations about the
scientific research. There is always a limitation on “knowing” the God. You can
never know the God. You can never know the God in a manner as you know about
your pencil or diary or dating schedule.
There is only one way out. If you cannot
know the God then the way is to be the God. This will be the subject matter of
my next article titled as “The Post Quantum God”.
No comments:
Post a Comment